Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Prohibition Through Taxation

By

tax
Being April Fool’s Day, this might almost seem laughable, if it wasn’t so serious and obvious an attempt to bring about prohibition through taxation. (And thanks to the many people who sent me information about this, you know who you are, I appreciate it.) A San Diego couple, Kent and Josephine Whitney, have introduced a ballot initiative they’re calling the “Alcohol-Related Harm and Damage Services Act of 2010.” If that sounds innocuous, it’s not. If they collect the required 433,971 signatures by August 23, it will be on the California ballot this November. The “Act” seeks to raise alcohol taxes as listed below. If you have a drink in your hand, put it down first. If you’re standing up, sit down. Drum roll, please:

  • Spirits — 2,700% increase [from $0.65 per 750 ml bottle to $17.57]
  • Beer — 5,500% increase [from $0.11 per 6-pack to $6.08]
  • Wine — 12,775% increase [from $0.04 per 750 ml bottle to $5.11]

No, those aren’t typos. The anticipated revenue of $7-9 billion would be used to fund the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, whatever that is. It won’t be used to fix the state deficit apparently.

In the OC Weekly Blog, Dave Lieberman correctly comments that “this is Prohibition through taxation” [a phrase I hope he won’t mind me borrowing]. He continues.

“The armchair libertarians must be having sedentary conniption fits from Yreka to Ysidro. Nowhere does it say that alcohol has to be a zero-sum game, not to mention the fact that the vast majority of those who do drink do so responsibly, which means you’re taxing those who play by the rules to pay for those who don’t.”

Ballotpedia lists a dozen reasons for the ballot measure, each one more fallacious than the last. The Whitney’s blame alcohol for murders, pregnant women drinking, burdens on health care, underage drinking, binge drinking; pretty much everything any neo-prohibitionists has ever thrown up against the wall, while naturally ignoring all of the personal responsibility for any of those actions. It’s as if they’ve drank the anti-alcohol kool-aid and believe unquestioningly all of the propaganda from those groups. To blame the alcohol and not the people who engage in those behaviors is a common tactic lately but ignores logic, common sense and any notion of fairness. It also reveals quite a lot about the mindset of the people who believe such nonsense. Also, if the ballot measure should pass, it would declare all of that nonsensically bad propaganda masquerading as statistics as true!

It also ignores the physical and mental health benefits of responsibly drinking moderate amounts of alcohol. Numerous studies have shown many, many health benefits to moderate drinking, not least of which are the many studies that show that people who drink moderately tend to live longer and be healthier than people who either abstain or overindulge. So in effect, this ballot measure would most likely make people in California less healthy.

Curiously, the State Attorney General’s summary says:

Additional state revenues of between $7 billion and $9 billion annually from an increase in state excise taxes on alcoholic beverages, with the proceeds going to support alcohol-related programs and services. A decrease in state and local revenues from existing excise and sales taxes on alcoholic beverages of several hundred million dollars annually due to a likely decline in consumption of alcoholic beverages.

The Initiative’s Analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office goes into more detail but remains similarly conservative in the negative consequences while swallowing wholesale the notion that it would actually bring in the estimated $7-9 billion in additional excise tax revenue. First of all, the loss of business and company’s going out of business outright would cause that figure to be greatly reduced from the start. If a bottle of wine has at least $5.11 in state excise taxes plus all of the other taxes, plus the costs of ingredients, manufacture, packaging, transportation, etc. even two-buck chuck is going to become ten-buck Ken or worse.

Similarly, if just the state excise tax on a six-pack of beer starts at $6.08, again plus every other cost of doing business, just who in their right mind believes that consumers will continue to merrily drink the same amounts at exponentially higher prices? Don’t even get me started on how many dollars will fly out of California by people driving to bordering states to buy their alcohol. You’re going to see a cottage industry in just-over-the-border liquor stores popping up wherever a road leaves California. It’s absurd to believe the revenue stream would continue at the same rate.

That analysis suggests that only several hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost in decreased consumption seems laughably conservative. Here’s some of their reasoning, from the analysis:

Effects on Existing State Excise and SUT Revenues. The decline in taxable consumption of alcoholic beverages that would likely be caused by this measure would reduce the revenues received for the General Fund from the existing state excise and SUT revenues. We estimate that this could potentially result in a loss of state revenues of several hundred million dollars annually.

Effects on Local Revenues. The likely decline in taxable consumption of alcoholic beverages due to the increase in the excise tax imposed under this measure would also affect local SUT revenues. We estimate that local governments, primarily cities and counties, would experience a decrease in sales tax revenues of approximately $100 million on a statewide basis due to the excise tax increase.

Indirect Economic Effects. If the measure were to result in declines in overall economic activity in California, it could produce indirect state and local revenue losses. Such effects could occur, for example, if businesses were to close because they could no longer remain profitable as the overall economy adjusted to a lower demand for alcohol in the long run. If these lost resources were not redirected back to California’s economy into equal or more productive activities, then it would likely lead to a net loss in taxable income and spending for state and local governments. The magnitude of these potential revenue losses is unknown.

See that last bit? “The magnitude of these potential revenue losses is unknown.” I can pretty much tell you it’s going to be staggering. It would be a near prohibition, with a return to illegal hooch. After homebrewers start selling their kitchen beers under the table, new law enforcement agencies will be created to stop them, every homebrew shop will be watched and anyone with a pair of rubber boots will be under suspicion.

So who the hell are the Whitneys and why are they trying to effect an alcoholic Armageddon? Those are good questions, I think, and there’s at least one very disturbing possibility. The V Bit Set speculates that it may be simply for money. Doing some detective work, internet style, he points out there is a Kent Whitney in the San Diego area who owns the 21st Century Wellness Initiative, and the ballot measure would provide “fifteen percent for the funding of grants for naturopathic treatment and recovery programs for alcohol addiction.” Are the two connected? He admits it’s wild conjecture at this point, but it is compelling nonetheless. If it turns out to be true, how vile and repugnant would this be? On an unimaginable scale, I’d have to say. To attack an entire healthy industry, putting thousands of workers and hundreds of businesses at risk of being removed from the economy for personal gain would be one of the most abominable acts of all time. If they’re sincere, it’s clear they either didn’t think through their actions or are entirely hostile to anyone who enjoys, makes or sells alcohol.

Beer In Ads #77: Saison Dupont’s Pot of Mussels

By

ad-billboard
Wednesday’s ad is for one of my favorite classic beers, Saison Dupont. I recently saw this ad as a poster framed at a friend’s house. The Saison Dupont Belgian Mussels poster is actually for sale at their importer’s website, Vanberg & Dewulf, though there’s no information about when it was first created.

Dupont-Mussels

There’s also another one in the style of one of my absolute favorite artists, Belgian surrealist Rene Magritte. The Magritte poster is also for sale.

Dupont-Magritte

Marin Institue Wagging Their Finger At Brewers Again

By

marin-institute
The Marin Institute is at it again. Today, they published a shiny color-coded map showing how — and I love this bit of doublespeak — “State Governments Neglect Beer Taxes.” The press release goes on to suggest that “inflation has decreased the value of low beer taxes, while state budget shortfalls have exploded.” Of course, that argument can be made for every single tax in existence, from sales tax to income tax yet they’re not crying about those not being raised. Everything is effected by inflation, yet it’s alcohol taxes that must bear the burden for that. And I’ve said it before, and I guess I have to keep saying it, but trying to make alcohol pay for the state’s shortfalls is not in the least bit fair. Alcohol companies didn’t cause the problems we’re all experiencing, yet these neo-prohibitionists keep insisting they must disproportionally pay to fix them. Whatever fixes are imposed should be paid by everyone, not just the convenient target of an extremist anti-alcohol organization.

This neglect, they claim, has “[l]egislators ignoring a lot of revenue their states could use right now.” They neglect, naturally, to factor in all of the direct and indirect positive economic contributions that the alcohol industry makes to our economy, one of the few industries growing and providing jobs. Instead, they suggest punishing and harming the alcohol industry to, and here’s a telling quote, “prevent future losses.” That presupposes that these taxes are somehow ordained from on high, sacrosanct and absolutely necessary. But are they? Not in the least. The taxes they’re referring to are excise taxes, taxes no other industry except tobacco has to pay. Alcohol companies already pay more taxes than any other goods manufacturing industry in the country. The notion that they have to be adjusted for inflation is something these yahoos just made up because they don’t like alcohol. The maps are very colorful and utterly useless.

pretty-map
Ooh, look at the pretty colors.
 

These excise taxes are patently unfair and always have been since they were first imposed during the Civil War to raise money for the Northern Army. That they’re taken for granted and most people believe there’s a good reason for them has more to do with anti-alcohol propaganda and decades of ceaseless attacks painting alcohol as a sin. Today’s reason du jour for the continued excise taxes is usually stated as alcohol is somehow duty-bound to pay for any harm caused by people abusing the products they make and sell. This argument, of course, doesn’t stand up to the simplest logic. Not everybody abuses alcohol, of course, and the percentage that do so are in a very small minority of the total number of people who regularly drink.

Still, this notion persists that the industry must pay for a small percentage of alcohol abusers. But if it’s about the harm, then why aren’t soda and fast food manufacturers taxed similarly for the burden they place on our healthcare system. People over-eating surely has made many people unhealthy and their medical bills far higher than people who eat a healthier diet. Why don’t they have to pay for the harm they cause? Why don’t pharmaceutical companies get taxed for the harm caused by people who abuse their prescription drugs? Why don’t gun and bullet makers have to pay for the violence caused by their products? I could go on and on. Almost everything causes harm if abused, but only alcohol has to pay for it, apparently.

What’s most pernicious about these recent attacks by anti-alcohol groups is that they’re simply seizing an opportunity caused by the economic downturn to advance an agenda that has little to do with what caused our economic woes. They’re essentially just stoking people’s fears to further their own agenda of removing alcohol from society by taxing it to death and figuring people will go along with it if they step up their lying to them about it at a time when we’re all worried about the future. It’s quite frankly, disgraceful.

In other recent news, the California state legislature did not approve Jim Beall’s latest attempt to punish alcohol with his nickel-a-drink tax that’s come up several times before and will continue to be brought up until the people of San Jose finally get smart enough to vote him out of office. Jim Beall is like a rabid dog that just won’t quit nipping at alcohol’s heels.

The Marin Institute’s chief flack, Bruce Lee Livingston quipped after its most recent defeat. “How in good conscience … can these public servants vote no or even worse abstain on this bill? It’s a travesty; whose interests are they representing?” Well, listen up, I’ll tell you. A nickel-a-drink sounds like a modest proposal, but it’s not. It would greatly raise the price of alcohol, especially beer, and even though I know that’s your real goal, it harms a healthy segment of the economy at a time when there are fewer and fewer healthy segments left. Legislators understand that. You do not, because you don’t care about the economy if it means alcohol continues to prosper. You only care about causing the alcohol industry harm. So it helps the interests of business, something pretty important if raising money is the goal so everyone in California can prosper. To you, it seems like a fine time to attack alcohol, but to people who really do care about the state’s economy, not so much. You also keep going on about big beer, but this harms 200 small breweries, many of which are Mom & Pop businesses just trying to make a living and feed their families, not giant behemoths.

Voting against it also helps the interests of the poor, who buy a lot of the beer, especially when Beall’s bill exempts 79% of wineries. The fee (or tax) is regressive, meaning it falls disproportionally on the poorest Californians. The bill also funds healthcare facilities to treat alcohol and drug abuse. Drugs, you may not realize, are not made in breweries, so asking alcohol companies to pay for pharmaceutical abuse is not exactly fair. In addition, the $700 million (still only 3.5% of the state deficit) you claim will help the budget won’t do any such thing if all or a portion is being used for these treatment facilities. Those are in addition to balancing the budget.

Sadly, the bill, “AB 1694 will be re-considered in the Assembly Health Committee on April 6.” And so it goes ….

Fucking Hell, I Need A Beer

By

austria
File this under news of the weird. According to the UK’s The Sun, the European Patent Office had to reverse their decision denying a company the right to produce a beer called Fucking Hell, when they were able to prove that Fucking is a real town in Austria. Or rather village, since there are only 104 people who live in Fucking, which is just 2-1/2 miles from the German border.

According to Wikipedia,

It is believed that the settlement was founded around the 6th century by Focko, a Bavarian nobleman. The existence of the village was documented for the first time in 1070 and historical records show that some twenty years later the lord was Adalpertus de Fucingin. The spelling of the name has evolved over the years; it is first recorded in historical sources with the spelling as Vucchingen in 1070, Fukching in 1303, Fugkhing in 1532, and in the modern spelling Fucking in the 18th century, which is pronounced with the vowel oo as in book. The ending -ing is an old Germanic suffix indicating the people of the root word to which it is attached; thus Fucking means “(place of) Focko’s people.”

Brewery spokesman Stefan Fellenberg said they plan to brew a Helles style beer. After years of trying on vain to keep people from stealing their town’s sign, and engaging in intercourse either in front of it or in town, the village instead decided to cash in instead. They may have gotten the idea from nearby Wank Mountain residents, who gave them some advice recently. Frankly, I can’t really blame them, though no doubt the U.S. will never give label approval. Guns and violence, yes. Sex, never. Even the Sun piece wouldn’t print either the word Fucking or Wank even though they’re legitimate place names. I’m constantly amazed at how utterly fearful we are about just … words.

Fing-Austria

Here’s another humorous addition about the signs in the village. “One version of the sign features the village name with an additional sign beneath it, with the words “Bitte — nicht so schnell!”, which translates from German into English as “Please — not so fast!” The lower sign – which features an illustration of two children — is meant to inform drivers to watch their speed, but tourists see this as a double-meaning coupled with the village name.”

Beer In Art #71: Tom Payne’s Beer Series

By

art-beer
Today’s work of art is by a local artist, from nearby Sonoma County, by the name of Tom Payne. He’s embarked on a series of beer paintings, at least one of which has appeared in All About Beer magazine. So far, five paintings in his Beer Series have been completed, with more promised to follow. I think my favorite so far is Jack o’ the Green.

Payne_Jack-of-the-Green

Here’s how Payne describes the painting:

Then came Mad Lloyd’s Jack o’ the Green Summer Ale. A parade festival of sorts, including the Green Man, the Lord of Misrule (whose appearance at a Summertide Festival caused me no end of cognitive dissonance), an alligator playing a trombone and various other parts and parcels.

But a close second has to be Mad Lloyd’s Tumultuous Uproar Imperial Stout, see below.

Payne_Tumultuous-Uproar

That was the second beer painting an in essence the one that set Payne down the path. All his work has a great, surreal quality, reminiscent of Max Ernst or the much earlier Hieronymus Bosch. There are lots of mysterious, fun details painted throughout every nook and cranny of each work.

Here’s a part of his biography, taken up starting with his arrival in Sonoma.

I moved to Sonoma County and started oil painting late in 2002, taking a few classes at the Santa Rosa Junior College to get things rolling. I discovered that oil is “where it’s at.” Pen & ink has always been the thing, but oil is the blastocyst, no question.

I am “interested in the spaces between line and form, real and imaginary, accident and purpose, defined and mysterious–figures that turn into landscapes and landscapes that become figures” it says here… how odd. I see things wrong (I also hear things wrong), and that’s what the “deal” is apparently.

I still draw and paint and make wine and wander about. Time continues to become a burgeoning apparatus. The wild turkeys are closing in and there is very little time left of time. So we may as well “do right” and “come about” in the appropriate manner.

Blah blah, crappy crap. And cetera. Aliusque tambien.

There’s much more at Payne’s website, Eyeball Press, where you can see galleries of paintings, and big paintings along with drawings and much else. He also sells his own work and takes commissions, too.

And here’s one more beer painting, Too Many Secrets Porter.

Payne_Too-Many-Secrets

Oakland Brewing Finds A Home

By

oakland-brewing
Steve McDaniel and the folks trying to launch Oakland Brewing Co. have some good news. They’ve found a location, finally. It’s the Old Cottonmill building at 1010 22nd Avenue in Oakland. It looks like a great old brick building with some history to it. As Steve is quick to remind me, they still have a very long way to go before the building can be turned into a working brewery, but if their luck holds they hope to have beer in the market by the end of 2010.

OBC-Cottonmill-1

The building, I’m told, is located “a short diagonal off Livingston Street (terminating at I-880), which intersects Embarcadero where Quinn’s Lighthouse sits, just northwest from Coast Guard Island. Once you’re on 22nd Ave, drive toward the freeway and the building will be on your right … if you hit Numi Tea at I-880, you’ve gone too far. Irish Monkey Cellars, who make a fine Cabernet Franc, is right in that same area too.”

You can see more photos of the building at their website.